How Did John Locke's Beliefs Affect Today

And He said, religion promises happiness in life for a while only. That is why Karl Marx critic about the ideology of religion and said religion is opium of the people. In additional, Marx said it necessarily a conservative, status-quo-preserving force (Mihaela Serban). Marx analysis and critique of religion perhaps one of the most famous and most quoted by theist and atheist alike (Austin Cline). Most of those who doing the quoting don’t really understand what exactly Marx

Williams was actually kicked out of the Massachusetts Bay Colony for these beliefs. Roger believed in what he called “Soul Liberty” which meant that liberty of conscience was necessary because no one could know for certain which form of religion was the true one God intended. Williams believed that everyone had the right to worship God how they saw fit. Also, he believed that no matter what religion you affiliated with; Quaker, Jew, Catholic, or some other religion, you had the right to think that way, whether he agreed or disagreed with it. Although, for example, he did not like the Puritan ways or beliefs he would tolerate the people who did.

And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas” (Huxley 27). The use of the word “we” shows this person views them self as part of Beta family, but not as a individual. The World State does not want people to behave as individuals because they do not want the citizens to have new ideas and thoughts that could could expose the flaws of society. This is also why the World State bans religion since it encourages individuality, “The origin of individuality was religious, and although often ignored or glossed over, in time the idea of human dignity adhering even to the lowest of the low, transformed society from a place of brutality to one in which the relief of suffering has assumed high priority” (Kohl). Due to the fact that religion supports individuality, it also emphasizes that people are equal to one another.

Moreover, in this complex sentence, he evokes his opinion that when a democracy ends, dictatorship begins; he continues to say that no one can possibly be blind to the fact that the government's attitude towards the colonies is immoral, showing how he feels about the current ruling and control over the colonies. Consequently he also states, “ The sentiments of men in such a case would in all likelihood be as various as their sentiments in religion or anything else; and as there would then be no settled rule for the publick to advert to, the safety of the people would probably be at an end”. In this line, he strongly shows his opinion towards the British rule and justifies that if the attitude of England is the way it is displayed to the colonies, the colonies are doomed. Using words like “ I dare”, as stated in the line, “ This I presume cannot be contested.

Atheism is just another form of religion seeking answers to the meaning of life, death and whether or not life exists beyond the grave. This was evident in the words, “Man is nothing but that which he makes of himself”. While he believed that physical death is the complete and final end of life, the chaplain held on the religious teachings of life after death. Meursault was more focussed on himself and his environment more so than he was on society and human emotions Again, this reinforced his beliefs that life is just a fleeting moment and no regard is needed to focus on the meaning of death. In the courthouse, the crucifix that was waved at him also opposed his view of absurdity of human life and had him publicly denouncing Christianity through his word, "Then God can help you," he said.

Behind every act of kindness lurks a selfish motivation. The Puritans were a religious sect in 17th century New England who believed in predestination or the belief that God had prior knowledge about each person’s fate in the afterlife. A core ideal of the Puritan religion was the principle of humanity being essentially evil and only doing good for others out of fear for God’s wrath or for selfish benefit. On the other end of the spectrum, is the humanists of the 18th century, many of which were America’s founding fathers. The humanists believed in the good of humanity and the concept of a loving, non-interfering God, a concept called Deism.

He believed that the people of earth were not taking heed of God’s word and that they were indulging in the seven deadly sins. Despite the fact that he is a loner who does not have much to his name, he does not seem to fit the profile of someone who is motivated by strain theory. Doe does not have tangible motives, and he has the means to achieve the motives that he does have. This means that he is not committing his crimes due to feeling strained by society, but that he’s doing it because it’s his goal. Comparatively, I believe Doe’s killings would relate more the rational choice theory.

Abolitionists disagree, stating the punishment is too harsh to serve justice, and it will not deter the committing of heinous crimes. The scriptures of the world's major religions seem to agree with, "an eye for an eye," advocates while at the same time concurring with abolitionists that, the death penalty--no matter the circumstances--is an immoral punishment. From these opposing views, we must conclude that scriptures were written by human beings, some accepting, others rejecting capital punishment. Therefore, it isn't possible to go to religious writings to find an answer acceptable to everyone. In searching for solutions, however, we should look at the Oklahoma City bomber's (Timothy McVeigh)

God is dead If God truly exists, then He should have prevented the holocaust, and since He failed to prevent it, then it means that He might not exist or He changed in some way. The Jews were made to understand that they are on their own and that they should be in this world for themselves. This approach precisely means that the holocaust presented and opportunity for the Jews to reconsider going back to their practices of atheism.

And yet, it escapes him that perhaps religious doctrines exist to serve subtle moral purposes, and that scientific fact is not their major concern. His opinions about religion epitomize all the myopia common to materialism and atheism. He forgets the profoundly inspirational qualities of faith; he ignores religion’s storehouse of literature, myth, and consoling rituals; and he entirely forgets the critical importance of religion in passing on a culture’s moral values. Had he understood the nature of man more deeply, he would have understood that only philosophers and saints can be induced to do good by appeals to reason alone; for the average man, only the fears of eternal damnation will keep his baser instincts in check.

The more opinionated activists, abolitionists, wanted slavery abolished because it was immoral way to treat human beings. The abolitionists were more aggressive in the fight against slavery. These people were not willing to compromise and firmly believed slavery should be abolished. Unwilling to compromise as well were the extreme pro-slavery activists. They believed that slavery should be allowed anywhere and the alternative would be to leave the union.

Slavery ended in the late 1800s and it was a major controversy to the Northern States. The Northern states were anti-slavery while the Southern states were pro-slavery. Since they were two different opinions because the northern states did not accept or want slavery to keep happening it ended All this slavery controversy and war could have been avoided by simply making slavery legal in all states, replacing the president, and machines being created faster than they were. Also, there were ways they could settle these opinions, and one way is they could have made slavery legal which all the people would have come together and unite as one.

The North was also attempting to justify denying the freedmen equal rights. In Document C it states another example of the North’s selfishness and how they were “weary of the ‘Negro Question’ ” . The North basically got tired of defending the freedmen and selfishly backed away. The North was so strongly against slavery and then it turned its back upon the freedmen. The people of the North were at fault because they believed the lies about the freedmen.

The Telegraph condemned lynchings on the grounds that they defamed the state’s reputation in the eyes of the nation. Anderson and his staff were not like other reformers of the era who held greater trust in the Federal Government. The Telegraph wanted to see its citizens, without outside interference, make changes to better their own community. It opposed the orgy of lynching, but did so on pragmatic grounds rather than for moralistic or humanitarian reasons. Perhaps Anderson’s convictions were pure.

As each group represents one of two opposing sides in the Civil War free state party is the United States of America or the Union while the border ruffians is the Confederate States of America. The free state party wanted slaves to be free through justified means like religion from Great Awakening and Second Great Awakening were many preached that all humans are created equal and since everyone is on equal terms then no one should enslave another person (Hahn 10/11). Other then religion a lot of European countries already banned slavery within their empires. So to many Americans it would seem as barbaric if a majority of the developed world has gotten rid of something altogether while the land of the free still has something that even opposes what is written in the constitution “all men are created equal”. Like with the caning of Sumner where Preston Brooks used his cane to beat up Charles Sumner on the senate floor because Sumner was insulting the way of life of the south (Hahn 11/8).